MPLS Traffic Engineering

MPLS Traffic
Engineering
NANOG18
Robert Raszuk - IOS Engineering

raszuk@cisco.com
1999, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Location of files
This presentation, handouts & demo are located at:
ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/rraszuk/nanog18
RR_MPLS_TE_Nanog.pdf - this presentation
TE_Monitor.pdf - show & debug commands
TE_Config.pdf - full configuration syntax
TE_SampleCfg.pdf - configuration sample
TE_DEMO.tar - Tared TE offline demo (HTML)
TEisistdp_1.pdf - Demos Lab Topology
NANOG18 - Robert Raszuk
Traffic Engineering: Motivations
Reduce the overall cost of operations by

more efficient use of bandwidth resources
by preventing a situation where some parts of
a service provider network are over-utilized
(congested), while other parts under-utilized
The ultimate goal is cost saving !

Traffic Engineering: Motivations
MPLS and Traffic Eng allows for one to

spread the traffic and distribute it across
the entire network infrastructure like
magnetic fields between poles while
also providing the redundancy required
for high availability service.
(Eric Dean)
Without Traffic Engineering

Cars:
SFO-LAX
SAN-SMF
LAX-SFO
SMF-SAN
No Traffic
Engineering
analogy
to Human
Drivers
With Traffic Engineering

Cars:
SFO-LAX
SAN-SMF
LAX-SFO
SMF-SAN
Traffic
Engineering
analogy
to Auto Pilot
Routing solution to Traffic

Engineering
R2
R3
R1
Construct routes for traffic streams within a service provider in such

a way, as to avoids causing some parts of the providers network to
be over-utilized, while others parts remain under-utilized
The Overlay Solution

L3
L3
L2
L3
L2
L2
L2
L3
L2
L2
L3
L3
L3
L3
L3
L3
L3
L3
Physical
Logical
Routing at layer 2 (ATM or FR) is used for traffic engineering

Analogy to direct highways between SFO-LAX & SAN-SMF.
Nobody enters the highway in between.
Traffic engineering with overlay

R2
R3
R1
PVC for R2 to R3 traffic

PVC for R1 to R3 traffic
Overlay solution: drawbacks

Extra network devices (cost)
More complex network management (cost)
two-level network without integrated network
management
additional training, technical support, field
engineering
IGP routing scalability issue for meshes

Additional bandwidth overhead (cell tax)
10
Traffic engineering with Layer 3

R2
R3
R1
IP routing: destination-based least-cost routing

Path for R2 to R3 traffic
under-utilized alternate path
11

R2
R3
R1
IP routing: destination-based least-cost routing

under-utilized alternate path
12

what is missing ?
Path computation based just on IGP metric is
not enough
Support for explicit routing (aka source
routing) is not available
Analogy:
San
San
Jose
Jose
13
MPLS Traffic
Engineering
14
TE - key mechanisms
Explicit routing (aka source routing)
Constrained-based Path Selection Algorithm
(Example: Choose path with no congestion, avoid
highways, select scenic roads etc)
Extensions to OSPF/ISIS for flooding of

resources / policy information (Live collection of
traffic statistics - pilot tests in Europe)
MPLS as the forwarding mechanism (Auto Pilot

programmed in each car when entering city)
15
TE - key mechanisms
Explicit routing (aka source routing)

RSVP as the mechanism for establishing
Label Switched Paths (LSPs)
use of the explicitly routed LSPs in the
forwarding table
16
What is a traffic trunk ?

A
Aggregation of (micro) flows that are:

forwarded along a common path (within a service provider)
often from a POP to another POP
share a common QoS requirement (if L-LSPs are used)
Essential for scalability

17
TE basics
Traffic within a Service Provider as a

collection of POP to POP traffic trunks with
known bandwidth and policy requirements
TE provides traffic trunk routing that meets
the goal of Traffic Engineering
via a combination of on-line and off-line
procedures
18
Requirements:
Differentiating traffic trunks:
large, critical traffic trunks must be well routed in
preference to other trunks
Handling failures:
automated re-routing in the presence of failures
Pre-configured paths:
for use in conjunction with the off-line route
computation procedures
Support of multiple Classes of Service

19
Requirements (cont.)
Constraining sub-optimality:
should re-optimize on new/restored bandwidth
in a non-disruptive fashion - maintain the existing route until the
new route is established, without any double counting
Ability to spread traffic trunk across multiple Label

Switched Paths (LSPs)
could provide more efficient use of networking
resources
Ability to include / exclude certain links for certain traffic

trunks
20
Design Constraints
Constrained to a single routing domain
initially constrained to a single area
Requires OSPF or IS-IS

Unicast traffic
Focus on supporting routing based on a
combination of administrative +
bandwidth constraints
21
Trunks Attributes
22
Trunk Attributes
Configured at the head-end of the trunk

Bandwidth
Priorities
setup priority: priority for taking a resource
holding priority: priority for holding a
resource
23
Trunk attributes
Ordered list of Path Options
possible administratively specified paths (via
an off-line central server) - {explicit list}
Constrained-based Dynamically computed
paths based on combo of Bw and policies
Re-optimization
each path option is enabled or not for reoptimization, interval given in seconds.
Max 1 week (7*24*3600), Disable 0, Def 1h.
24
Trunk Attributes
Resource class affinity (Policy)
supports the ability to include/exclude certain links for
certain traffic trunks based on a user-defined Policy
Tunnel is characterized by a
32-bit resource-class affinity bit string
32-bit resource-class mask (0= dont care, I care)
Link is characterized by a 32-bit resource-class attribute

string
Default-value of tunnel/link bits is 0
Default value of the tunnel mask = 0x0000FFFF
25
Example0: 4-bit string, default

C
A
0000
0000
0000
D
0000
B
0000
Trunk A to B:
tunnel = 0000, t-mask = 0011
ADEB and ADCEB are possible

26
Example1a: 4-bit string

C
A
0000
0000
0000
D
0010
B
0000
Setting a link bit in the lower half drives all tunnels off the
link, except those specially configured
Trunk A to B:
tunnel = 0000, t-mask = 0011
Only ADCEB is possible

27
Example1b: 4-bit string

C
A
0000
0000
0000
D
0010
B
0000
A specific tunnel can then be configured to allow such

links by clearing the bit in its affinity attribute mask
Trunk A to B:
tunnel = 0000, t-mask = 0001
Again, ADEB and ADCEB are possible

28
Example1c: 4-bit string

C
A
0000
0000
0000
D
0010
B
0000
A specific tunnel can be restricted to only such links by

instead turning on the bit in its affinity attribute bits
Trunk A to B:
tunnel = 0010, t-mask = 0011
No path is possible
29
Example2a: 4-bit string

C
A
0000
0000
0000
D
0100
B
0000
Setting a link bit in the upper half drives has no immediate

effect
Trunk A to B:
tunnel = 0000, t-mask = 0011
ADEB and ADCEB are both possible

30
Example2b: 4-bit string

C
A
0000
0000
0000
D
0100
B
0000
A specific tunnel can be driven off the link by setting the bit
in its mask
Trunk A to B:
tunnel = 0000, t-mask = 0111
Only ADCEB is possible

31
Example2c: 4-bit string

C
A
0000
0000
0000
D
0100
B
0000
A specific tunnel can be restricted to only such links

Trunk A to B:
tunnel = 0100, t-mask = 0111
No path is possible
32
Trunk Attribute
Resource Class Affinity (Policy)
The user defines the semantics:

this bit/mask says low-delay path
excluded
Flexible (maybe too flexible :)

1c vs 2c ? in 1c, the default tunnels
will not be willing to flow via the special
links
33
Link Attributes and

their flooding
34
Link Resource Attributes
Resource attributes are configured on

every link in a network
bandwidth
Link Attributes
TE-specific link metric
35
Link Resource Attributes
Resource attributes are flooded throughout

the network
bandwidth per priority (0-7)
Link Attributes (Policy)
TE-specific link metric
draft-li-mpls-igp-te-00.txt
36
Per-Priority Available BW
T=0
T=1
T=2
T=3
T=4
Link L, BW=100
D advertises: AB(0)=100== AB(7)=100

AB(i) = Available Bandwidth at priority I
Setup of a tunnel over L at priority=3 for 30 units

D
Link L, BW=100
D advertises: AB(0)=AB(1)=AB(2)=100
AB(3)=AB(4)==AB(7)=70
Setup of an additional tunnel over L at priority=5 for 30 units

D
Link L, BW=100
D advertises: AB(0)=AB(1)=AB(2)=100
AB(3)=AB(4)=70
AB(5)=AB(6)=AB(7)=40
37
Information Distribution
Re-use the flooding service from the

Link-State IGP
opaque LSA for OSPF
draft-katz-yeung-ospf-traffic-00.txt
new wide TLV for IS-IS

draft-ietf-isis-traffic-00.txt
38
Information Distribution
Periodic (timer-based)
On significant changes of available
bandwidth (threshold scheme)
On link configuration changes
On LSP Setup failure
39
Periodic Timer
Periodically, a node checks if the

current TE status is the same as the
one lastly broadcasted.
If different, it floods its updated TE
Links status
40
Significant Change
100%
92%
85%
70%
Update
50%
Update
Each time a threshold is

crossed, an update is
sent
Denser population as
utilization increases
Different thresholds for
UP and Down (stabler)
41
LSP Setup Failure
Due to the threshold scheme, it is possible

that one node thinks he can signal an LSP
tunnel via node Z while in fact, Z does not
have the required resources
When Z receives the Resv message and
refuses the LSP tunnel, it broadcasts an
update of its status
42
Constrained-based
Computation
43
Constrained-Based Routing
In general, path computation for an LSP may seek to

satisfy a set of requirements associated with the LSP,
taking into account a set of constraints imposed by
administrative policies and the prevailing state of the
network -- which usually relates to topology data and
resource availability. Computation of an engineered
path that satisfies an arbitrary set of constraints is
referred to as "constraint based routing.
Draft-li-mpls-igp-te-00.txt
44
Path Computation
On demand by the trunks head-end:
for a new trunk
for an existing trunk whose (current)
LSP failed
for an existing trunk when doing reoptimization
45
Path Computation
Input:
configured attributes of traffic trunks originated
at this router
attributes associated with resources
available from IS-IS or OSPF
topology state information
available from IS-IS or OSPF
46
Path Computation
Prune links if:
insufficient resources (e.g., bandwidth)
violates policy constraints
Compute shortest distance path

TE uses its own metric
Tie-break: selects the path with the
highest minimum bandwdith so far, then
with the smallest hop-count
47
Path Computation
Output:
explicit route - expressed as a sequence of
router IP addresses
interface addresses for numbered links
loopback address for unnumbered links
used as an input to the path setup
component
48
Example
C
BW(3)=80
0100
1000
BW(3)=60
0000
BW(3)=50
0000
BW(3)=20
B
0000
BW(3)=80
0010
BW(3)=70
1000
BW(3)=50
G
Tunnels request:
Priority 3, BW = 30 units,
Policy string: 0000, mask: 0011
49
MPLS as the forwarding

mechanism
50
MPLS Labels
Two types of MPLS Labels:
Prefix Labels & Tunnel Labels
Distributed
by:
LDP
RSVP
MP-BGP
CR-LDP
PIM
51
MPLS as forwarding engine
Traffic engineering requires explicit routing capability

IP supports only the destination-based routing
not adequate for traffic engineering
MPLS provides simple and efficient support for

explicit routing
label swapping
separation of routing and forwarding
52
LSP tunnel Setup
53
RSVP Extensions to RFC2205

for LSP Tunnels
downstream-on-demand label distribution
instantiation of explicit label switched paths
allocation of network resources (e.g., bandwidth) to explicit LSPs
rerouting of established LSP-tunnels in a smooth fashion using
the concept of make-before-break
tracking of the actual route traversed by an LSP-tunnel
diagnostics on LSP-tunnels
the concept of nodal abstraction
preemption options that are administratively controllable
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-0X.txt
54
RSVP Extensions: new objects

LABEL_REQUEST found in Path
LABEL found in Resv
EXPLICIT_ROUTE found in Path
RECORD_ROUTE found in Path, Resv
SESSION_ATTRIBUTE found in Path 0x01 Fast Reroute Capable,
0x02 Permit Merging, 0x04 May Reoptimize => SE
New C-Types are also assigned for the SESSION,
SESSION
SENDER_TEMPLATE,
SENDER_TEMPLATE FILTER_SPEC,
FILTER_SPEC FLOWSPEC objects.
All new objects are optional with respect to RSVP (RFC2205).
The LABEL_REQUEST and LABEL objects are mandatory with
respect to MPLS LSP signalisation specification.
55
LSP Setup
Initiated at the head-end of a trunk

Uses RSVP (with extensions) to
establish Label Switched Paths
(LSPs) for traffic trunks
56
Path Setup - Example

R9
R8
R3
R4
R2
Pop
R5
R1
Label 32
Label 49
Label 17
R6
R7
Label 22
Setup: Path (ERO = R1->R2->R6->R7->R4->R9)

Reply: Resv communicates labels and
reserves bandwidth on each link
57
Path Setup - more details

R1
R2
R3
1
Path:
Common_Header
Session(R3-lo0, 0, R1-lo0)
PHOP(R1-2)
Label_Request(IP)
ERO (R2-1, R3-1)
Session_Attribute (S(3), H(3), 0x04)
Sender_Template(R1-lo0, 00)
Sender_Tspec(2Mbps)
Record_Route(R1-2)
58

R1
R2
R3
1
Path State:
PHOP(R1-2)
Label_Request(IP)
ERO (R2-1, R3-1)
Sender_Tspec(2Mbps)
Record_Route (R1-2)
59

R1
R2
R3
1
Path:
Common_Header
PHOP(R2-2)
Label_Request(IP)
ERO (R3-1)
Sender_Tspec(2Mbps)
Record_Route (R1-2, R2-2)
60

R1
R2
R3
1
Path State:
PHOP(R2-2)
Label_Request(IP)
ERO ()
Sender_Tspec(2Mbps)
Record_Route (R1-2, R2-2, R3-1)
61

R1
R2
R3
1
Resv:
Common_Header
PHOP(R3-1)
Style=SE
FlowSpec(2Mbps)
Label=POP
Record_Route(R3-1)
62

R1
R2
R3
1
Resv State
PHOP(R3-1)
Style=SE
FlowSpec (2Mbps)
OutLabel=POP
IntLabel=5
Record_Route(R3-1)
63

R1
R2
R3
1
Resv:
Common_Header
PHOP(R2-1)
Style=SE
FlowSpec (2Mbps)
Label=5
Record_Route(R2-1, R3-1)
64

R1
R2
R3
1
Resv state:
PHOP(R2-1)
Style=SE
FlowSpec (2Mbps)
Label=5
Record_Route(R1-2, R2-1, R3-1)
65
Trunk Admission Control

Performed by routers along a Label Switched
Path (LSP)
Determines if resources are available
May tear down (existing) LSPs with a lower
priority
Does the local accounting
Triggers IGP information distribution when
resource thresholds are crossed
66
Link Admission Control
Already invoked by Path message

if BW is available, this BW is put aside in a waiting pool
(waiting for the RESV msg)
if this process required the pre-emption of resources, LCAC
notified RSVP of the pre-emption which then sent PathErr and/or
ResvErr for the preempted tunnel
if BW is not available, LCAC says No to RSVP and a Path
error is sent. A flooding of the nodes resource info is triggered,
if needed
draft-ietf-mpls-rsvp-lsp-tunnel-02.txt
67
Path Monitoring
Use of new Record Route Object

keep track of the exact tunnel path
detects loops
copy of RRO to ERO allows for route
pinning
68
Path Re-Optimization
Looks for opportunities to re-optimize

make before break
no double counting of reservations
via RSVP shared explicit style!
69
Non-disruptive rerouting - new

path setup
R9
R8
R3
R4
R2
Pop
R5
R1
32
49
17
R6
R7
22
Current Path (ERO = R1->R2->R6->R7->R4->R9)

New Path (ERO = R1->R2->R3->R4->R9) - shared with Current Path
Until R9 gets new Path Message, current Resv is refreshed
70
Non-disruptive rerouting switching paths

R9
R8
R3
R4
R2
Pop
Pop
26
89
R5
R1
32
38
49
17
R6
R7
22
Resv: allocates labels for both paths

Reserves bandwidth once per link
PathTear can then be sent to remove old path (and release
resources)
71
Reroute - More Details

ERO (R2-1, R3-1)
R3-1
00
00
R1 2
R3
1 R2 2
01
1
3 01
3
01
Resource Sharing
ERO (R2-1, , R3-3)

R3-3
01
72

R1
R2
R3
2
3
Path:
Common_Header
PHOP(R1-2)
Label_Request(IP)
ERO (R2-1, ,R3-3)
Sender_Tspec(3Mbps)
Record_Route(R1-2)
1
3
73

R1
R2
R3
3
Path State:
PHOP(R1-2)
Label_Request(IP)
ERO (R2-1, ,R3-3)
Sender_Tspec(3Mbps)
Record_Route (R1-2)
74

R1
R2
R3
3
75

R1
R2
R3
3
RSVP:
Common_Header
PHOP(R3-3)
Style=SE
FlowSpec(3Mbps)
Label=POP
Record_Route(R3-3)
76

R1
R2
R3
3
77

R1
R2
R3
3
RSVP:
Common_Header
PHOP(R2-1)
Style=SE
FlowSpec (3Mbps)
Label=6
Record_Route(R2-1, , R3-3)
Label=5
78

R1
R2
R3
3
RSVP state:
PHOP(R2-1)
Style=SE
FlowSpec
Label=6
Record_Route(R2-1, , R3-3)
Label=5
79
Fast Restoration
Handling link failures - two

complementary mechanisms:
Path protection
Link/Node protection
80
Path Protection
81
Path Protection
Step1: link failure detection

O(depends on L2/L1)
Step2a: IGP reaction (ISIS case)

Either via Step1 or via IGP hello expiration (30s by default for ISIS)
5s (default) must occur by default before the generation of a new LSP
5.5s (default) must occur before a change of the LSPDB and the consecutive SPF run.
The next SPF run can only occur 10s after (default)
Flooding time (LSP are paced (16ms for first LSP, 33ms between LSPs, depend also
on link speed)
Once the RIB is updated, this change must be incorporated into CEF.
The Head-end finally computes the new topology and finds out that some
established LSPs are affected. It schedules a reoptimization for them
82
Path Protection
Step2b: RSVP signalisation

rsvp path states with the failed intf as oif is detected
check if another oif available (if loose ero)

if not, clear path state and send tear to head-end
Step2: Either stepA or stepB alarms the head-end
Step3: Re-optimization
dijkstra computation: O(0.5)ms per node (rule of thumb)
RSVP signalisation time to instal rerouted tunnel

convergence in the order of several seconds (at least).
83
Path Protection
Speed it Up
Fine Tune the IGP convergence

Through adequate tuning, ISIS could be tuned to converge in 2-3s, this
ensuring that the convergence time bottleneck is the signalisation time for the
new tunnel.
Several tunnels in parallel with load-babalancing

if combined with the IGP convergence, the path resilience could be brought to
around 2-3s
One end-2-end tunnel in parallel but in backup mode

feature under development (Fast Path Protection)
84
Fast ReRoute
(aka Link Protection)
An Overview
85
Objective
FRR allows for temporarily routing

around a failed link or node while the
head-end may reoptimize the entire
LSP
rerouting under 50ms
scalable (must support lots of LSPs)
86
Fast reroute Overview

Controlled by the routers at ends of a failed
link
link protection is configured on a per link basis
Session_Attributes Flag 0x01 allows the use of
Link Protection for the signalled LSP
Uses nested LSPs (stack of labels)

original LSP nested within link protection LSP
87
Static backup Tunnel

R9
R8
R4
R2
R5
R1
Pop
17
R6
R7
22
Setup: Path (R2->R6->R7->R4)

Labels Established on Resv message
88
Routing prior R2-R4 link failure

R9
R8
R4
R2
Pop
R1
R5
14
37
R6
R7
Setup: Path (R1->R2->R4->R9)

Labels Established on Resv message
89
Link Protection Active

R9
R8
R4
R2
R5
R1
R6
R7
On failure of link from R2 -> R4, R2 simply changes outgoing

Label Stack from 14 to <17, 14>
90
Link Protection Active

R8
R9
Pop 14
Swap 37->14
Push 17
R4
R2
Push 37
R5
R1
R7
R6
Swap 17->22
Label Stack:
Pop 22
R1
R2
37
R6
17
14
R7
22
14
R4
14
R9
None
91
Fast ReRoute
More details on Link
Protection (FRR v1)
92
V1 Constrain
We protect the facility (link), not individual LSPs

scalability vs granularity
No node resilience
Static backup tunnel
The protected link must use the Global Label space
A backup tunnel can backup at most one link, but n
LSPs travelling via this link
93
Terminology
R9
R8
R4
R2
R5
R1
R6
R7
LSP: end-to-end tunnel onto which data

normally flows (eg R1 to R9)
BackUp tunnel: temporary route to take in
the event of a failure
94
Terminology
Link Protection
In the event of a link failure, an LSP is
rerouted to the next-hop using a
preconfigured backup tunnel
95
How to indicate a link is protected and

which tunnel is the backup?
On R2 (For LSPs flowing from R2 to R4):

interface pos <r2tor4>
mpls traffic-eng backup tunnel 1000 link
LSPs are unidirectional, so the same

protection should be enable for the
opposite direction if reverse LSP is conf.
96
How to setup the backup tunnel?

Just as a normal tunnel whose head-end
is R2 and tail-end is R4
v1 requires a manually configured ERO
interface Tunnel1000
ip unnumbered Loopback0
tunnel destination R4
tunnel mode mpls traffic-eng
tunnel mpls traffic-eng priority 7 7
tunnel mpls traffic-eng bandwidth 800
tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option 1
explicit name backuppath1
ip explicit-path name
backuppath1 enable
next-address R6
next-address R7
next-address R4
97
Which LSPs can be rerouted on R2 in

the event of R2-R4 failure?
The LSPs flowing through R2 that

have R2-R4 as Outgoing Interface
have been signalled by their respective
head-ends with a session attribute flag
0x01=ON (may use fast-reroute tunnels)
int tunnel 1
## config on the head-end
tunnel mpls traffic-eng fast-reroute
98
Global Label Allocation

POP
R8
14
R9
R4
R2
R5
R1
R6
R7
For the blue LSP, R4 bound a global label of 14

Any MPLS frame received by R4, with label 14,
will be switched onto the link to R9 with a POP,
whatever the incoming interface
99
How fast is fast?
Link Failure Notification

Usual PoS alarm detection
PoS driver optimisation to interrupt RP in < 1ms
Expected call to net_cstate(idb, UP/DOWN) identifying the DOWN
state of the protected int to start our protection action.
RP updates the master TFIB (replace a swap by a swap-push)

< 1ms
Master TFIB change notified to the linecards

< 1ms
100
Path state while Rerouting

Path (, PHOP=R2, )
R8
BackUP tunnel
R9
Path
state
R4
R2
R5
R1
R6
R7
PathError (Reservation in Place)
101
Path & Resv Msgs [Error & Tear]

R2
R1
R4
R3
When no link protection:

Resv Tear
Conf.
Path Tear
Conf.
Resv Tear
When link protection:

Path Error
Resv in
place
R4 waits for
refresh
102
LSP reoptimization
Head-end notified by PathError

special flag (reservation in place)
indicates that the path states must not be
destroyed. It is just a hint to the head-end
that the path should be reoptimized
Head-end notified by IGP

103
Why the Patherror?
The Patherror might be faster

In case of multi-area IGP, the IGP will not provide the
information
In case of very fast up-down-up, the LSP will be put on the
backup tunnel and will stay there as the IGP will not have
originated a new LSP/LSA
a router waits a certain time before originating a new
LSP/LSA after a topological change
Reliable PathErr optimization
104
Resv state while Rerouting

The loss of the interface does not affect the Path
and Resv states for the LSPs received on that
interface that are marked fast reroutable!
R9
R8
Resv
state
BackUP tunnel
R4
R2
R5
R1
Resv
R6
R7
Resv Message is unicast to the Phop (R2)

R2s Path State has been informed that the Resv might arrive over a different intf as
the one used by the Path message
105
DiffServ and LSP Reoptimization
In order to optimize the bandwdith usage, backup tunnels

might be configured with 0kbps
no non-working bandwdith as in SDH!
Although usually the backbone is though as being

congestion-free, during rerouting some local congestion
might occur
Use diffserv to handle this short-term congestion
Use LSP reoptimization to handle the long-term
congestion
106
Layer1/2 and Layer3
Backup Tunnel should not use

the protected L3 link
the protected L1/L2 links!!!
Use WANDL (loaded with both L3 and L1/2

topologies) to compute the best paths for backup
tunnels
Download this as static backup tunnels to the routers
107
Fast ReRoute
Node Protection
108
Overview
R9
R8
R4
R3
R2
R5
R1
R6
R7
Backup Tunnel to the next-hop of the LSPs

next-hop
109
A few More details

Assume
R2 is configured with resilience for R3
R2 receives a path message for a new LSP whose
ERO is {R3, R4, }, whose Session is (R9, 1, R1),
whose sender is (R1, 1) and whose session attribute is
(0x01 ON, 0x02 OFF)
0x01: may use local fast-reroute if available
0x02: merge capable
110
A few More details
Then
R2 checks if it already has a tunnel to R4
If not, R2 builds a backup tunnel to R4 (currently
just like in link protection - manual explicit setup).
R2 sends a Path onto the tunnel with Session
(R9, 1, R1), Sender (R2, 1), Session Attribute (0x01
OFF, 0x02 ON) and PHOP R2
111
A few More details
When R4 receives this Path message,

it matches the session with the LSPs one
merge (and thus stop) this path message
sends a RESV back to R2 (unicast) and allocate
the appropriate label L
112
A few More details
When R2 detects R3s failure,

For the TFIB entry for the LSP, R2 changes the existing swap
by a swap to L and a push of the backup tunnel label
R4s states are refreshed by the secondary path messages

(over the backup tunnels)
ERO of the original path is adjusted at R2
NHOP is modified in R2 (from R3 to R4)
PHOP is modified in R4 (from R3 to R2)
113
A few More Details
RESV is being sent back from R4 to R2

directly
If R3 is still active and just the R2-R3 link
failed R4 needs to ignore & drop any
Tear-Down msg R3 would be sending
after the termination of reception of path
refreshes from R2.
114
How to detect R3s failure?
A node may fail while the link is still

up
A nodes linecard processes might
survive, a main process failure (freeze
of the RP process)
115
A possible solution
RP
LC
RP
LC
...
LC
Keepalives between LCs

Keepalives between a LC and its master RP
116
Assigning traffic to Paths

(aka autoroute)
117
Enhancement to SPF
During SPF each new node found is moved from a
TENTative list to PATHS list. Now the first-hop is
being determined via:
A. Check if there is any TE tunnel terminating at
this node from the current router and if so do
the metric check
B. If there is no TE tunnel and the node is directly
connected use the first-hop from adj database
C. In non of the above applies the first-hop is
copied from the parent of this new node.
118
Enhancement to SPF - metric check

Tunnel metric:
A. Relative +/- X
B. Absolute Y
The default is relative metric of 0.
Example:
Metric of native IP path to the found node = 50
1. Tunnel with relative metric of -10 =>
40
2. Tunnel with relative metric of +10 =>
60
3. Tunnel with absolute metric of 10 =>
10
119
Enhancement to SPF - metric check

If the metric of the found TE tunnel at this node is
higher then the metric for other tunnels or native
IGP path this tunnel is not installed as next hop
If the metric of the found TE tunnel is equal to other
TE tunnels the tunnel is added to the existing nexthops
If the metric of the found TE tunnel is lower then
the metric of other TE tunnels or native IGP the
tunnel replaces them as the only next-hop.
120
Other TE New Features
121
Auto-Bandwidth
Global command:
Monitor marked tunnels 5-min average

counters every X minutes
default: X = 300 (seconds)
(config)# mpls traffic-eng auto-bw
timers frequency <seconds>
122
Auto-Bandwidth
Per tunnel command:
Every Y minutes, update the BW constraint of the tunnel with
the maximum of:
the largest 5-min values sampled during the last Y minutes
(Def Y = 24 * 3600sec) - 24h
a configured maximum value
(config-if)# tunnel mpls traffic-eng auto-bw
{frequency <seconds>} {max-bw <kbs>}
if the new Bw is not available, the old one is maintained (the

new BW is signalled via a 2nd tunnel to follow make before
break model)
123
Example
124
Verbatim
Applies to explicitly routed LSPs
Disable any check against TE/IGP database
of the head end
RSVP still check BW (and policy when this
will be in Path) hop by hop
Application: manual TE through multi-area
IGP
CLI: tunnel mpls traffic-eng path-option verbatim
125
In-Progress
Allows an end-head to account for bw

consumed by tunnels that it has just
signalled and for whom the IGP LSA/LSP
update has not reflected the available
bandwdith
126
Example
In-Prog Bw: 10
55
Avail Bw: 100
All tunnels require 45 units of BW

In-progress counters reset upon new LSA/LSP reception
In-progress counter decremented upon receipt of path-error
127
Benefits
Speed-up the installation of tunnels as it

avoids spending time trying not working
solutions
Allows for better load-balancing
igp metric then max(min(path-bw)!
128
Under/Overbook
ML: Maximum link bandwidth:
This sub-TLV contains the maximum bandwidth that can be used on this link in
this direction (from the system originating the LSP to its neighbors). This is useful
for traffic engineering.
MR: Maximum reservable link bandwidth:

This sub-TLV contains the maximum amount of bandwidth that can be reserved
in this direction on this link. Note that for oversubscription purposes, this can be
greater than the bandwidth of the link.
UR(I): Unreserved bandwidth at Priority i:

This sub-TLV contains the amount of bandwidth reservable on this direction on
this link, at a certain priority. Note that for oversubscription purposes, this can be
greater than the bandwidth of the link.
129
Under/Overbook
As config:
As config:
int
...
int s0
s0
bandwidth
<B1>
(eg
1500
kbps)
bandwidth <B1>
(eg 1500 kbps)
ip
ip rsvp
rsvp bandwdith
bandwdith <B2>
<B2> (eg
(eg 4000
4000 kbps)
kbps)
Physical T1
s0
...
ML is set to B1 (eg 1500)

MR is set to B2 (eg 4000)
At t=0, for all i 0 to 7, UB(i) = M = (eg 4000)
routerA's LCAC will not accept an LSP tunnel asking more than ML even if there is available
bandwdith at the requested priority.
However, LCAC would allow for example 5 trunks each asking 700 kbps (thus each asking less than
ML) while the aggregate is smaller than MR: because { 700 < ML=1500 } and { 3500 < MR=4000 }
130
Standby
Current solution
Tu1: bw1
A
B
Tu2: bw2
Tu3: bw3
Tu4: bw4
Solution:
4 tunnels from A to B:
Tu1s relative metric: -3
Tu2 and tu3s relative metric: -2
Tu4s relative metric: -1
131
Last hop label

IETF draft-ietf-mpls-label-encaps-07.txt
A value of 0 represents the "IPv4 Explicit NULL Label
A value of 1 represents the "Router Alert Label
A value of 2 represents the "IPv6 Explicit NULL Label"
A value of 3 represents the "Implicit NULL Label
New cli forces tailend to send implicit-null (3) instead of explicit null (0) default.
# [no] mpls traffic-eng signalling advertise implicit-null [<acl>]
On receipt (n-1) node we must map 0, 1 or 3 to internal Implicit Null [1
only for historical reasons]
132
QoS and RRR
133
QoS and RRR
MPLS TE can operate simultaneously (and

orthogonally) with MPLS Diff-Serv
All Precedence/DSCP packets follow the
same TE tunnels
Diff-Serv provides selective discard (via WRED),
and selective scheduling (via WFQ)
134
QoS and RRR

Future:
Scalable per-tunnel scheduling and
policing
Guaranteed PIPE in MPLS-VPN CoS
per-DSCP/per-FEC traffic engineering

diffserv backbone capacity management
135
DiffServ and fast-reroute/TE
In order to optimize the bandwdith usage, backup tunnels

might be configured with 0kbps
no non-working bandwdith as in SDH!
Although usually the backbone is though as being

congestion-free, during rerouting some local congestion
might occur
Use diffserv to handle this short-term congestion
Use LSP reoptimization to handle the long-term
congestion
136
RSVP
LSP Signalling Protocol
for Traffic Engineering
137
MPLS-TE Signalling Protocol
Two proposed signaling mechanisms for

MPLS traffic engineering are being
considered by the IETFs MPLS work group
RSVP (Cisco and a number of Gigabit router
startups (Avici, Argon, Ironbridge, Juniper, and
Torrent))
CR-LDP (Ericsson, Ennovate, GDC, Nortel)
138
Why RSVP ?
What is needed: An IP signalling Protocol!
ability to establish and maintain Label Switched
Path along an explicit route
ability to reserve resources when establishing a
path
Interdependent, not independent tasks

benefit from consolidation
139
Do I need RSVP only for TE ?

NO !
Other uses of RSVP in todays networks:

Voice over IP call setup, Video (IPTV)
Hybrid deployments (only where needed)
QoS DiffServ Engineering (Cops)
Qualitative Service for DiffServ with RSVP
(as opposed to Quantitative RSVP IntServ model)
140
RSVP is a natural choice
RFC2205: provides a general facility for

creating and maintaining distributed
reservation state across a mesh of multicast
and unicast delivery paths
TE: use as a general facility for creating and
maintaining distributed forwarding &
reservation state across a mesh of delivery
paths
141

RFC2205: transfers and manipulates QoS
control parameters as opaque data, passing
them to the appropriate traffic control
module for interpretation
TE: transfer and manipulate explicit route
and label control parameters as opaque data
pass explicit route parameter to the
appropriate routing module, and label
parameter to the MPLS module
142

Leverage Standardized Protocols
PIM for Multicast MPLS
BGP for MPLS VPNs
RSVP for MPLS Traffic Engineering
LDP (TDP) has been designed because it was easier than fixing all
IGPs (RIP, EIGRP, OSPF, ISIS)
fast deployments and engineering consistency
Leverage Deployed Experience

RSVP deployed since 1996 (IOS 11.2)
ww.isi.edu/rsvp/DOCUMENTS/ietf_rsvp_qos_survey
for a list of RSVP implementations
143
RSVP easily supports

Dynamic resizing of tunnels or paths through
refresh messages
Supports strict as well as loose source routes
No double counting of bandwidth when rerouting sub-optimal routes
Extensible via definition of new objects

144
RSVP/TE and Scalability
Very Different than IntServ context
State applies to a collection of flows (i.e. a traffic trunk),

rather than to a single (micro) flow
RSVP sessions are used between routers, not hosts
Sessions are long-lived (up to a few weeks)
Paths are not bound by destination-based routing
Reference: Applicability Statement for Extensions to
RSVP for LSP-Tunnels (draft-awduche-mpls-rsvp-tunnelapplicability-01.txt)
145
RSVP/TE and Scalability
Very Different than IntServ context

RFC2208: the resource requirements for running
RSVP on a router increases proportionally with the
number of separate sessions
TE: that is why using traffic trunks to aggregate flows
is essential
RFC2208: supporting numerous small reservations
on a high-bandwidth link may easily overtax the
routers and is inadvisable
TE : n/a in the context of TE - traffic trunks aggregate
multiple flows
146
TE/RSVP Scalability
With basic RSVP (RFC2205), 10000 RRR LSP tunnels

flowing through a 75x0 or 12000 is not a problem
Already Deployed on a number of Tier-1 ISP backbones
http://www.nanog.org/mtg-9905/hanna.html
Ship with 12.0(5)S
Refresh Aggregation work will again enhance this

scalability
147
Conclusion
Using RSVP as MPLS/TE signalling protocol is the natural

and consistent choice
It is however only one part of a whole solution:
MPLS as forwarding engine
IGP (OSPF/ISIS) extensions
Constrained Base Routing (RRR)
RSVP as MPLS/TE Signalling Protocol
Installation of Tunnels in the FIB
148
Summary
149
Traffic Eng
Provides traffic engineering capabilities at

Layer 3
above and beyond of what is provided with
ATM
Could be used for other applications as well

Shipping and deployed in production
150
Presentation_ID
151

MPLS Traffic Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MPLS Traffic Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MPLS Traffic

Robert Raszuk - IOS Engineering

1999, Cisco Systems, Inc.

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Traffic Engineering: Motivations

Reduce the overall cost of operations by

The ultimate goal is cost saving !

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Traffic Engineering: Motivations

MPLS and Traffic Eng allows for one to

NANOG18 - Robert Raszuk

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Without Traffic Engineering

NANOG18 - Robert Raszuk

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

With Traffic Engineering

NANOG18 - Robert Raszuk

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Routing solution to Traffic

Construct routes for traffic streams within a service provider in such

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

The Overlay Solution

Routing at layer 2 (ATM or FR) is used for traffic engineering

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Traffic engineering with overlay

PVC for R2 to R3 traffic

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Overlay solution: drawbacks

IGP routing scalability issue for meshes

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Traffic engineering with Layer 3

IP routing: destination-based least-cost routing

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Traffic engineering with Layer 3

IP routing: destination-based least-cost routing

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Traffic engineering with Layer 3

NANOG18 - Robert Raszuk

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

1999, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Extensions to OSPF/ISIS for flooding of

MPLS as the forwarding mechanism (Auto Pilot

NANOG18 - Robert Raszuk

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Explicit routing (aka source routing)

NANOG18 - Robert Raszuk

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

What is a traffic trunk ?

Aggregation of (micro) flows that are:

Essential for scalability

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Traffic within a Service Provider as a

NANOG18 - Robert Raszuk

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Support of multiple Classes of Service

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Ability to spread traffic trunk across multiple Label

Ability to include / exclude certain links for certain traffic

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Requires OSPF or IS-IS

2000, Cisco Systems, Inc.

1999, Cisco Systems, Inc.

Configured at the head-end of the trunk